On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200 Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200 > > Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND > > > since they introduce conflicts? > > > > You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency > > resolution works: currently, cycles consisting purely of RDEPENDs > > are ignorable. > > So, what do we lose? If PDEP comes 'ASAP' officially, I believe that > we actually gain RDEPs which can be actually trusted.
"ASAP" is a weaker guarantee that RDEPENDs currently have -- RDEPENDs currently have the weakest guarantee necessary to ensure that they can be trusted. It's also a useless guarantee, since "ASAP" can be arbitrarily late. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
